David Bellamy Muzzled over Global warming nonsense

[Rolf]

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Agreed. The question is whether the man-made CO2 is significant. That is the main question.

So to get it straight, it seems we agree that increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are likely to cause climate change. So we are only debating wether we are releasing enough to initiate such a change.

I ignore non-expert ideas/theories, and look for expert research.

Now, here is where the volcano argument is interesting because it reflects the common belief that we as humans can not possibly affect our whole planet.
I previously posted this in the other thread, which are figures I got from sources such as Wikipedia etc. (don't remember now, but I can find them again if required)

CO2 content in the atmosphere on average is around 3000 billion tonnes. The current estimates of human CO2 emissions, due to burning of fossil fuels and deforestation etc., is some 27 billion tonnes each year. That is roughly 1% we add to the atmosphere every year. We can debate whether to call it 'massive' or not, but as a comparison it is in fact more than 130 times greater than the amount emitted by all the Earth's volcanoes. So please tell me GF, that if we suddenly had 130 times more volcanoes it would not affect our atmosphere? It is a rather naive assumption isn't it?

You may call it a non-expert idea but if you have some other data here that backs up your view that our contribution is insignificant then please do share.

"obscene" is a judgement, not science. If we pumped "obscene" amounts of water into the sea, would that be bad ?

I think at a factor of 130 there is plenty of room for error and enough evidence to call our release of greenhouse gases at least 'massive' if not 'obscene', but point taken I should have chosen a less judgemental word.

The reason I find this frustrating is that I do not think the creation of CO2 is the problem. I think the real problem we face is Peak Oil. Rather than trying to absorb CO2, we should be concentrating on where we are going to get our energy from.

Peak Oil is certainly also interesting but is a completely different issue which I believe there are multiple other threads related to here on PT. We can always debate which problem is more urgent right now, but what I initially reacted to, both now and in the old thread, was people dismissing our contribution to global warming as being 'nonsense' etc. People need to back up their arguments with facts which is what I'm trying to do.

[Steve Netwriter]

Peak Oil is certainly also interesting but is a completely different issue which I believe there are multiple other threads related to here on PT. We can always debate which problem is more urgent right now, but what I initially reacted to, both now and in the old thread, was people dismissing our contribution to global warming as being 'nonsense' etc. People need to back up their arguments with facts which is what I'm trying to do.

IMO, the starting point for any climate change discussion should be "what has actually happened to temperatures?".

I think CO2 data is fairly well estimated. But as always there are two sides to the story. There are CO2 emissions, and also CO2 absorption. It is IMO useless to talk about the emissions without also talking about absorption.

Whatever the data with CO2 and other effects (dust, water vapour etc), the question remains, what has actually happened to temperature ?
It matters not how big emissions of CO2 are if the CO2 actually has little effect.
And that is the crucial question. Does CO2 make a significant difference ?

Dismissing CO2 without knowing the temperature history would be as silly as dismissing the effects of the Sun.

I think you are wrong in thinking Peak Oil is unrelated. IMO it is extremely relevant. And as I've said, very relevant when looking for any solutions.

IMO it is not a matter of which is more important. They are related. And have to be considered together.

[Rolf]

Let's for a moment recall that Einstein once introduced the Cosmological Constant into his General Relativity, simply because his theory showed that the Universe was expanding equally in all directions. This was completely unheard of back then. It was generally accepted that the Universe was static and so Einstein could simply not believe the consequences of his own theoretical work. He later referred to the introduction of that constant as the biggest mistake in his life.

What I want to illustrate is that I think when we are dealing with issues which are so difficult to measure and complex to unveil, such as human contribution to global warming, then we need to consider both actual measurements and theoretical evidence.
It is argued that there is currently a discrepancy between the two and while that may well be the case I just personally don't think that warrants the complete dismissal of humans as contributors when the theory in such simple terms predict it to be the case. And my main motivation for entering this debate was that some forum members seem to lean heavily toward a hasty dismissal, and often resort to sarcasm and ridicule rather than backing up their views with solid arguments.

I find it surprising, to say the least, if humans every year can release 130 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than what is naturally released by volcanoes, without any side effects what so ever.
I would like to hear an argument as to how that could be possible. I have heard none yet. Measurements or not, something just doesn't add up. Steve, you are absolutely right that carbon is also absorbed, but which new carbon sink has suddenly emerged during the last 100 years to absorb these massive extra emmissions?

[AnnetteS]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas yes, but they have yet to find evidence it causes warming


"The Australian scientist who developed his country’s Kyoto accounting protocol says there is no evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming and global warming itself appears to have stopped by 2001, with temperatures now back to 1980 levels.
In an article in The Australian newspaper today, Dr David Evans says that despite years of searching for it, scientists have found no evidence to support the theory that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
While Dr Evans accepts global warming has occurred, he insists there is no evidence carbon emissions caused it, despite computer modelling that suggested warming would follow higher carbon dioxide emissions.
Further, he says all the evidence is there has been no global warming since 2001, and temperatures are now back to 1980 levels.
“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise?” he writes. “The [Australian] Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions… When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.”
Dr Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
“I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector,” he says. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office.”
When he started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good, he wrote.
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”
But since 1999, new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.
“As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir’?
“There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
“One. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
“When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
“Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot.
“If you believe that you’d believe anything.
“Two. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
“Three. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the ‘urban heat island’ effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
“Four. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.”
None of these points are controversial, Dr Evans writes. Alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance, he adds.
“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
“Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
“In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
“If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
“The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
“The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.”

http://poneke.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/warm-3/

[TonyMacaroni]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...=en&emb=0&aq=f#

Documentary film featuring many Academic 'Non-beleivers' in the man made global warming myth.

I am suspicious of any theory that makes human life the enemy, with the 'fix' being proposed as a carbon trading scheme run by the banks who have destroyed the global economy...

[tricky]

I find it surprising, to say the least, if humans every year can release 130 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than what is naturally released by volcanoes, without any side effects what so ever.
I would like to hear an argument as to how that could be possible. I have heard none yet.

I think the CO2 debate is over what the side effects are.
I think the side effects are pretty much nothing. There seems to be no link to global warming.
Some think the side effects are catastrophic. Each to their own.
Do you think we should worry about the side effects?

[tricky]

I am suspicious of any theory that makes human life the enemy, with the 'fix' being proposed as a carbon trading scheme run by the banks who have destroyed the global economy...

Huh? Run by the banks?
Thought it was the greens/labour who are pushing this carbon trading scheme swindle?

[67910241]

imo

It would be interesting to see what types of side-effects it could induce with much higher atmospheric levels than current (where the atmosphere seems to be heading regardless of the cause).



If we keep doing nothing and the GH effect is eventually exposed as a non-issue, perhaps in a few centuries we will get a chance to develop serious health issues due to high CO2, maybe even all suffocate well before we get a real shot at cooking the planet to death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

[Jalice888]

The worry here is everyone has some correct ideas and some ideas are false aswell since world weather is constantly degrading. CO2 has been blamed for a long time but how many used their eyes to see its also a lot other chemicals aswell. The Globe did warm up a hell of a lot and now more recently it is the chemical cloud around the world lowering temperatures where suns rays fail to penetrate and only dangerous UV gets through. Volcanoes have had an effect too but we can't control nature, just our own behaviour - When Taupo blew up it covered the whole North Island in 100mm of ash with acids that destroyed everything at ground level = normal huge erruption effect. Has everyone forgot the increase in world floods, tornadoes and earthquakes etc - nature is in control to balance the bulging population in the world.
So much seems to be from Generation X and worse from Generation Y where as the reality is the majority haven't had enough life to realise the huge change in our weather. When I was young on the farm in the late 60s and 70s, I could work outside all the time with my shirt off and never get sunburnt where as a trip to the beach we put SPF5 on to stop reflection while most girls used SPF 1-3 for a golden tan. Nowdays you need to put SPF35 on to protect yourself, women get disease from tanning in sunbeds, no-one can go without a shirt and hiding from daylight means we get flu easier aswell as teenagers in America have their bones shatter for no reason due to no Vitamin D making thin bones.
Trying to change the atmosphere back is like a smoker stopping their habit when starting as a teenager smoking a packet a day then quitting at 50, regardless their chance of cancer is higher but would be worse the longer they kept smoking, their bones are weak so any breaks won't heal well and operations on bones they have to forget about totally. So many other problems like Emphasiema from smoking can be compared to the choking of our atmosphere and no matter how many know the dangers, too many will just think 'its not my problem'.

Everyone should take a reality check and think; 'If I am old enough to know, then what is my life experience. If I am not old enough then lets see what my parents and, if possible, their parents believe is true about this!' Too many grow up in concrete and timber surroundings then use others stories from the web etc, personal experience is the best truth but you do need a few decades to judge correctly! Is this as bad a world as you want for your kids or do you want to make a plastic sphere for them to live inactive lives in the way some Japanese workers already live - the choice is with us now.

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Fools race in where Angels fear to tread.
Health is the main priority;

I have to disagree. Knowing what happens to you after you die is the main priority :-). If we are eternal beings, (and we are), then that is way more important than my six pack.
(Actually I have a 1 pack wrapped around mine :-)

[Perry]

Don't recall who said it . . .

Some people change their views to fit the facts
Others try to change the facts to fit their views

Which can be very uncomfortable if you just
happen to be one of the facts concerned.

[Josko]

I have to disagree. Knowing what happens to you after you die is the main priority :-). If we are eternal beings, (and we are), then that is way more important than my six pack.
(Actually I have a 1 pack wrapped around mine :-)

I would have said "eternal soul", though you should pray that on the day of judgement you find your way to the heart of the Creator and not end up as a misguided entity.

[Dean@Massiveaction]

Well our soul isn't eternal, only our spirit is. :-)

[Perry]

And the evidence for all these eternal
speculations is where, exactly?

(Note; hearsay is not evidence, any more
than assertion makes something a fact.)

[princess]

Same place as every other piece of "evidence" you base your life on Perry... in your mind.

And yep i know where i am going. See ya there Poomba!